1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the statement in the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination as to whether the obligation to return unjust enrichment exists

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, who occupies each of the instant lands as a road after the construction of the said road, gains profit equivalent to the rent by occupying and using each of the instant lands without any legal cause, and thereby has suffered damage equivalent to the same amount from the Plaintiffs. In addition, even after the date of the closing of argument of the instant case, it is evident that the Defendant gains profit equivalent to the rent from the time of the termination of occupation of the instant road or the Plaintiffs’ loss of ownership of the instant road, and thereby causes damage to the Plaintiffs as a result, barring any special circumstance. 2) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiffs unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the occupation and use of the instant road.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) without knowing the status of the dispute over ownership of each of the instant lands, the Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) around 2003, the land of this case was transferred from the Republic of Korea to the public for the convenience of the public; and (b) as such, the Defendant did not have a duty to return unjust enrichment due to the possession of each of the instant lands.

However, even if the Defendant did not know of the status of the ownership dispute over each of the instant lands, as seen earlier, insofar as the Defendant, without a legitimate title, determined and managed each of the instant lands as the general urban planning facilities through H of July 31, 2006, and the notification I of the Namyang-si on June 29, 2010, as the Defendant was determined and managed as the general urban planning facilities, the Defendant may be exempted from the responsibility to return unjust enrichment due to the use of possession of each of the instant lands.